Bibliographie sélective OHADA

On 23 November 2017, OHADA member states adopted the Uniform Act on Mediation. The Act lays down rules relating to mediation of disputes which, if successful, ends in a settlement agreement. Settlement agreements that are not freely respected by the parties will have no effect unless they are forcefully executed. Forceful execution is made with the help of a court or notably public who are empowered to insert an executory formula on the agreement after verification of its regularity. These local authorities involved in the enforcement process rely on domestic laws of member states which vary from state to state. This has the effect of tainting the harmonization process intended by the OHADA lawmaker and may be inimical to investors. This raises the problem of the suitability of the Act to dispute settlement as regards enforcement of settlement agreements. With the help of qualitative and comparative analysis, this article brings to limelight the intricacies of the enforcement of settlement agreements underOHADA. It concludes that enforcement of settlement agreements is rendered simple and rapid but faces serious drawbacks which could be alleviated by setting up OHADA mediation institution to oversee the entire mediation process, besides other recommendations.

A arbitragem é um meio de resolução de litígios, que se alicerça na autonomia privada e é reconhecida, quer internacionalmente, quer nas constituições estaduais analisadas, como um modo de exercício, alternativo aos tribunais estaduais, do direito fundamental constitucional à tutela jurisdicional efetiva. A questão que se coloca é a de saber se, em primeiro lugar, as partes podem acordar renunciar, validamente, a direitos fundamentais processuais na arbitragem e, podendo, com que requisitos e dentro de que limites, para, em segundo lugar e em particular, aplicar os requisitos e limites referidos à (in)admissibilidade da renúncia ao direito a requerer a anulação da sentença arbitral na arbitragem internacional. Partindo da ponderação do âmbito, conteúdo e regime dos direitos fundamentais em confronto, de um lado, à tutela jurisdicional efetiva, incluindo o direito à arbitragem e outros direitos fundamentais processuais, como o de impugnar a sentença arbitral em determinados casos e, do outro lado, à autonomia privada, que fundamenta a renúncia, e sem prejuízo de a ponderação dever ser feita em cada caso concreto, concluo que a renúncia àqueles direitos é válida, se cumprir determinados requisitos subjetivos e objetivos, que identifico, incluindo os limites e os respetivos critérios para aferir da referida (in)validade. Quanto ao direito a requerer a anulação da sentença arbitral na arbitragem internacional, concluo que, sem prejuízo e com base nas soluções consagradas de jure constituto, a renúncia por acordo das partes é, do ponto de vista constitucional normativo e, de jure constituendo no direito português, válida, desde que se respeitem aqueles requisitos. Em particular, tem de existir um meio de impugnar a sentença arbitral, quando esta viole, de forma grave, direitos fundamentais processuais e/ou interesses de ordem pública de cada Estado, que não estão na disponibilidade das partes, nos casos e termos necessários a garantir o conteúdo essencial do direito fundamental à tutela jurisdicional efetiva. No entanto, há margem do legislador para adotar o regime mais adequado ao propósito referido. Na arbitragem internacional, do ponto de vista normativo-constitucional, podem as partes renunciar, total e/ou parcialmente, à anulação na sede, quando há a possibilidade de controlo último, pelo menos de violações graves de direitos fundamentais processuais e/ou interesses de ordem pública de cada Estado, aquando do reconhecimento e execução da sentença arbitral, sendo esta a solução legal que, na minha opinião, melhor se coaduna com a arbitragem internacional no seu todo. Arbitration is a dispute resolution mechanism rooted in private autonomy and internationally recognised, as well as in the national constitutions analysed, as an alternative means to state courts for exercising the constitutional fundamental right to effective judicial protection. The primary question of this dissertation is whether the parties can validly agree to waive fundamental procedural rights in arbitration, and if so, under what conditions and within what limits. Secondly, I specifically apply these conditions and limits to the (in)admissibility of waiving the right to seek annulment of the arbitral award in international arbitration. By weighing the scope, content and framework of conflicting fundamental rights – the right to effective judicial protection (encompassing the right to arbitration and other fundamental procedural rights, such as the right to challenge the arbitral award in certain cases), against private autonomy (which justifies the waiver) – and, without prejudice to the necessary case-by-case balancing, I conclude that the waiver of these rights is valid, provided that subjective and objective requirements, including the limits and criteria for assessing the (in)validity of the waiver, are met. Regarding the right to request annulment of the arbitral award in international arbitration, I conclude that, without prejudice to and relying on legal solutions established de jure constituto, the waiver by agreement of the parties is valid from a normative constitutional perspective and de jure constituendo under Portuguese Law, provided such subjective and objective requirements are respected. Specifically, there must be a means to challenge the arbitral award when it seriously violates fundamental procedural rights and/or public order interests of each State, which are beyond the parties’ disposal, in certain cases and under certain terms as necessary to protect the core essence of the fundamental right to effective judicial protection. However, the legislator retains discretion to adopt the most appropriate legal framework for this purpose. In the context of international arbitration, from a normative-constitutional perspective, the parties may waive annulment at the seat, in whole and/or in part, provided there is the possibility of ultimate oversight, particularly in cases involving serious violations of fundamental procedural rights and/or public order interests of each State at the stage of recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award. In my opinion, this legal solution is the one that best aligns with the global system of international arbitration.

L’acte uniforme originel sur les procédures collectives avait prévu une procédure préventive, le règlement préventif, au bénéfice des débiteurs qui traversent des difficultés sérieuses. La nécessité de la consécration d’une procédure à la fois amiable et préventive s’est imposée. C’est désormais chose faite depuis la révision de 2015. Le législateur a ainsi consacré les procédures de conciliation et de médiation à l’article 2-1 de l’Acte uniforme sur les procédures collectives d’apurement du passif (AUPC). Si pour la mise en œuvre de la première, il faut se référer à l’AUPC, la deuxième est règlementée dans l’Acte uniforme sur la médiation (AUM). Nous proposons donc dans cette étude, à la suite de la présentation de ces procédures amiables comme modes anticipatifs et efficaces de sauvetage d’entreprises, des pistes de réflexion afin de rendre effectif le recours à cet arsenal juridique.

在国际商事仲裁领域，以各类仲裁规则、程序指南为代表的软法常常因其制定成本低和效率高的特征以及回应国际商事仲裁各领域中当事人典型需求的功能而成为当事人所偏好的选择，在国际商事仲裁发挥着广泛的影响力。但同时软法也在发挥其效用的过程中面临着挑战，包括当事人意思自治的局限和仲裁庭自由裁量权的局限。因此，在推进国际商事仲裁领域软法建设的过程中，需要警惕软法不当适用导致的陷阱，明确软法制定的必要性的同时也需要审慎权衡软法的适用，将软法与硬法相结合，使国际商事仲裁可以更好地满足当事人的需求，使国际商事仲裁中的软法成为公平公正解决当事人之间争议的有效途径。 In the field of international commercial arbitration, soft law, represented by various types of arbitration rules and procedural guides, is often preferred by the parties due to its low-cost and high- efficiency features, as well as its function of responding to the typical needs of the parties in various areas of international commercial arbitration, and it exerts a wide range of influence in international commercial arbitration. However, at the same time, soft law also faces challenges in realizing its usefulness, including the limits of party autonomy and the limits of arbitral tribunal discretion. Therefore, in promoting the construction of soft law in the field of international commercial arbitration, it is necessary to be alert to the pitfalls caused by the improper application of soft law, to clarify the necessity of soft law and at the same time weigh the application of soft law carefully, to combine soft law with hard law, so as to make international commercial arbitration better satisfy the needs of the parties, and to make soft law in international commercial arbitration become an effective way of resolving the disputes between the parties in a fair and just manner.

条约选购无论是从投资者的实践，还是从国际仲裁案件的数量来看，都已成为现代投资领域不可忽视的一个问题。文章第一部分对于条约选购的概念进行了界定，并总结了条约选购问题形成原因和不利影响，这是探究条约选购问题的前提。第二部分通过梳理国际仲裁中的各类案例，整理了影响国际仲裁庭识别条约选购问题的三个标准，根据这三个标准分析了仲裁庭对于条约选购的态度，总结得到条约选购问题并不是非法行为，国际仲裁庭甚至天然地会倾向于保护投资者，更多地会给国家造成损失。由此引出第三部分，即国家能够减少因条约选购问题带来的损失的三种主要的限制方法，并对三种方法进行利弊分析，以期给未来国家的条约缔结实践提供一定的建议。 Treaty shopping has become an issue that cannot be ignored in the modern investment field, both in terms of investors’ practice and the number of international arbitration cases. The first chapter of this article defines the concept of treaty shopping and summarizes the reasons for the formation of treaty shopping, which is the prerequisite for exploring the issue of treaty shopping. In the second chapter, by sorting out various cases in international arbitration, three criteria affecting the identification of treaty shopping by international arbitral tribunals are compiled, and the attitude of arbitral tribunals towards treaty shopping is analyzed according to these three criteria, concluding that treaty shopping is not an illegal act, and international arbitral tribunals are even naturally inclined to protect investors, which causes losses to states. The third chapter introduced the resulting three main methods of restriction that states can use to reduce losses caused by treaty shopping, and analyze the pros and cons of these three methods, with a view to providing some suggestions for future state treaty-making practice.

This paper comprehensively analyses the potential of blockchain technology and smart contracts to revolutionise dispute resolution. As dispute resolution methods evolve, blockchain and smart contracts, which offer efficiency, transparency, and fairness, are becoming more critical. That is especially the case in mediation and construction adjudication, which are less traditionally formal and tend to be carried through much more quickly than other forms of dispute resolution. The opportunity of blockchain comes from its ability to demonstrate a tamper-proof, clear record, reducing risks of misunderstanding and bias. This facilitates the transfer and verification of evidence both in the carrying out of projects and during dispute resolution processes. Smart–digital contracts with terms coded indirectly- allow for automated contract enforcement. They execute automatically upon meeting specific conditions. This automation brings a new efficiency level, cutting the time and costs of conventional dispute resolution. Nonetheless, integrating blockchain and smart contracts in dispute resolution faces several challenges. The current limited understanding and acceptance of these technologies in the legal sector is an imminent issue. Legislative changes are necessary to provide a solid legal framework for these technologies in legal processes and to address potential inconsistencies of approach. Such reform requires strong cooperation among lawmakers, technologists, and legal experts to ensure implementation that adheres to legal and ethical norms and ensures that the technologies can be applied with confidence by the stakeholders within the process. This collective effort is crucial for seamlessly integrating blockchain and smart contracts into legal frameworks.

在经济全球化背景下，社会经济快速发展的新时代，商事交易无处不在，致使商事纠纷比以往更加频繁。在现代法治国家，诉讼制度作为一种公共救济手段，虽然是最常见的纠纷解决机制，但是基于案件分流的实际需要和仲裁制度本身具有的速度、效率等优势，承认并支持仲裁协议效力扩张的做法逐渐为各国所接受。从支持仲裁的角度来看，将合同相对性原则的例外作为支持仲裁协议效力扩张的理论基础是必要的。随着交易的深入发展，必然会出现更多的仲裁协议效力的扩张情形，需要充分考虑和权衡具体案件的情况，在维护仲裁协议效力和仲裁第三人利益之间寻求最佳平衡点。 Under the background of economic globalization, in the new era of rapid social and economic development, commercial transactions are everywhere, resulting in commercial disputes more frequent than before. In modern countries ruled by law, litigation system, as a means of public relief, is the most common dispute resolution mechanism, but based on the actual needs of case diversion and the advantages of arbitration system itself such as speed and efficiency, the practice of recognizing and supporting the expansion of the effectiveness of arbitration agreements has gradually accepted by all countries. From the perspective of supporting arbitration, it is necessary to take the exception of the principle of contract relativity as the theoretical basis to support the expansion of the validity of arbitration agreements. With the further development of transactions, there will inevitably be more cases of expansion of the effectiveness of arbitration agreements. It is necessary to fully consider and weigh the circumstances of specific cases, and seek the best balance between maintaining the effectiveness of arbitration agreements and the interests of third parties.

The transformation of international trade from conventional to digital impacts several things, including resolving international trade disputes. In order to realize an efficient and effective dispute resolution process, many countries have implemented ODR to settle international trade disputes. This study aims to analyze the implementation of ODR in various countries and examine issues with unclear guidelines based on international law. This research observes the development of ODR in Indonesia and the urgency for its implementation in Indonesia. The research is normative juridical, with a statutory and comparative approach. The results obtained in this study are model law arrangements relating to the standardization of ODR Providers aimed to protect the personal data of the parties, unification of ODR dispute resolution clauses, and formulation of national legal instruments to create legal certainty regarding ODR, including ODR proceedings, permits, and monitoring,  as well as recognition and execution process of electronic ODR decisions.

仲裁的优势之一是它的一裁终局性，但随着国际交易规模和金额的日益扩大，许多境外仲裁机构由此衍生出内部选择性上诉制度，深圳国际仲裁院借鉴知名境外仲裁机构引进此制度。但其中的许多规定与我国仲裁法以及民事诉讼法的规定存在冲突，并且可能导致当事人滥诉以及裁决在我国的承认与执行还存在问题。上述限制了复裁在我国的适用范围，在现行制度下，只能采取措施避免复裁制度与《仲裁法》的诸多规定相冲突。但随着国际贸易的发展，我国的《仲裁法》有必要作出调整，采取在部分地区尤其是高新技术产区进行试点以及制定符合仲裁制度特点的监督机制的方式来完善仲裁制度的发展。 One of the advantages of arbitration is its finality, but with the increasing scale and amount of international transactions, many overseas arbitration institutions have derived an internal optional appellate system, and the Shenzhen Court of International Arbitration has introduced this system by drawing on well-known overseas arbitration institutions. However, many of these provisions conflict with the provisions of China’s Arbitration Law and Civil Procedure Law, and may lead to abusive litigation by the parties and problems in the recognition and enforcement of awards in China. The above limits the scope of application of the review in China, and under the current system, measures can only be taken to avoid conflicts between the review system and many provisions of the Arbitration Law. However, with the development of international trade, it is necessary to adjust China’s Arbitration Law, and improve the development of the arbitration system by carrying out pilot projects in some areas, especially in high-tech production areas, and formulating supervision mechanisms that are in line with the characteristics of the arbitration system.

La Procédure de règlement des différends opposant les opérateurs de communications électroniques au Cameroun prévoit, en premier, la saisine de l’Agence de Régulation des Télécommunications (ART). Cette dernière devra tenter de concilier les parties. Si cette tentative de conciliation échoue, alors le dossier sera transmis au Comité de Règlement des Différends (CRD) qui devra trancher le litige. Au cas où la décision intervenue est contestée par une des parties, elle pourra saisir soit les juridictions de droit commun, soit l’arbitre. Cependant, le législateur de 2010 n’a pas résolu toutes les questions relatives à l’intervention de cet arbitre. Par exemple, qui le constitue ? Quelles règles gouvernent la procédure et sur la base de quelles normes doit-il trancher ? Où aura lieu l’arbitrage ? L’examen de la loi de 1998 qui a été abrogée par celle de 2010, plus explicite sur la question, nous livre un régime qui tantôt rapproche le régulateur d’un centre d’arbitrage sur certains aspects, tantôt l’éloigne sur d’autres.

Le règlement des différends par les parties à une relation d’affaires, à travers l’arbitrage, n’est pas un fait nouveau dans les pays africains. Seulement, la nécessité était posée d’adapter ce mode alternatif aux réalités économiques africaines. Pendant longtemps, la majeure partie des contentieux dans lesquels les parties africaines sont impliquées, était réglée en dehors de ses frontières. Ce qui ne favorisait pas leur participation active. Mais la mise en place de l’OHADA et surtout, la création de la CCJA et plus tard son Centre d’arbitrage, suivis par les différents Centres d’arbitrage des Etats ont permis de faire de l’effectivité de l’arbitrage, une réalité. De l’arbitrage traditionnel, l’OHADA, a élargi le champ d’application de ce droit, en y incluant l’arbitrage des investissements, à l’occasion de la réforme du 23 et 24 novembre 2017. Actuellement, cette réforme fait l’objet de nombreuses critiques, notamment, sur le fait que pour certains, ce mécanisme favorise plus l’investisseur étranger que l’Etat partenaire, et que la notion même de l’investissement, n’a jusque-là pas fait l’objet d’une définition claire, tant en droit, en jurisprudence encore moins en doctrine. Pour mettre en œuvre l’arbitrage, les parties font recours à des arbitres, auxquels elles confient leurs différends suivant une convention d’arbitrage ou un instrument d’investissement qui détermine leur mission. Cette dernière peut être accomplie selon les cas, sous la forme d’un arbitrage institutionnel ou ad hoc, et finira par une sentence arbitrale, qui tranchera ce conflit. Comme dans la justice étatique, cette sentence est susceptible des voies de recours. L’arbitrage ne va pas sans écueils : de la constitution du tribunal arbitral à la sentence finale, plusieurs difficultés peuvent surgir.

后疫情时代，以虚拟听证为代表的虚拟现实技术在国际商事仲裁领域的广泛引用，对原本以当事人意思自治主义为核心的国际商事仲裁传统制度造成了冲击，形成了仲裁机构权力相对扩大的现象。一方面，其体现为在当事人的意思自治与仲裁庭权力发生分歧，并诉诸法院解决纠纷之时，法院在事实上驳回了当事人的诉请、支持了仲裁庭的诉求；另一方面，则体现为虚拟听证作为国际商事仲裁领域提高仲裁效率的关键切入点，在一定程度上和当事人追求的公平之间出现碰撞。因此，为了缓解仲裁当事人和仲裁机构的矛盾、平衡公平和效率的冲突，应当从实质上规范仲裁机构的行为、从形式上增加仲裁机构的公信力，在制度层面和技术层面对仲裁庭权力进行有效制约。 In the post-epidemic era, the extensive use of virtual reality technology in the field of international commercial arbitration, represented by virtual hearings, has impacted the traditional system of international commercial arbitration centered on party autonomy, resulting in the relative expansion of the power of arbitral institutions. On the one hand, it is reflected in the party’s autonomy and arbitral tribunal power disagreement, and resort to the court to resolve disputes, the court in fact rejected the party’s claim, support the arbitral tribunal’s claim; on the other hand, it is reflected in the virtual hearing as the international commercial arbitration field to improve the efficiency of arbitration key entry point, to a certain extent, and the parties to the pursuit of fairness of the collision between. Therefore, in order to alleviate the contradiction between the parties to arbitration and the arbitration institution, and to balance the conflict between fairness and efficiency, it is necessary to regulate the behavior of the arbitration institution in terms of substance, to increase the credibility of the arbitration institution in terms of form, and to impose effective constraints on the power of the arbitration tribunal at the institutional level and at the technical level.

第三方资助是国际仲裁领域较为新兴的制度，其由于可以有效帮助当事人解决仲裁高昂费用，承担仲裁败诉风险等优点，受到国际商事主体和仲裁机构的青睐和认可。第三方资助给当事人带来利益的同时，也会给仲裁程序造成可能的负面影响。如何让第三方资助更好地服务国际仲裁，与国际仲裁和谐发展，采取何种措施规制第三方资助的发展，是研究第三方资助需要重点关注的问题。本文在分析第三方资助对国际仲裁程序带来的积极价值和可能存在的风险的基础上，研究现有包含第三方资助规则的仲裁规则，比较各个仲裁机构对披露规则的不同规定。提出在《仲裁法》中确立国际仲裁第三方资助的合法性，并作出原则性规定，通过仲裁机构制定规则指引，以期为我国国际仲裁机构更好发展第三方资助制度建立法律基础。 Third-party funding is a relatively new system in the field of international arbitration, which is favored and recognized by international commercial subjects and arbitration institutions because it can effectively help the parties to solve the high cost of arbitration and bear the risk of losing the arbitration. While the third-party funding brings benefits to the parties, it also brings possible negative effects to the arbitration process. How to make third-party funding better serve international arbitration, develop harmoniously with international arbitration, and what measures to take to regulate the development of third-party funding are the issues that need to be focused on in the study of third-party funding. Based on the analysis of the positive value and possible risks brought by third-party funding to international arbitration proceedings, this paper studies the existing arbitration rules containing third-party funding rules and compares the different provisions of disclosure rules of various arbitration institutions. It is proposed to establish the legality of third-party funding for international arbitration in the Arbitration Law, and make provisions in principle, and formulate rules and guidelines through arbitration institutions, so as to establish a legal basis for the better development of third-party funding system for international arbitration institutions in China.

随着民商事交往活动的发展，固守仲裁协议相对性已然无法应对现实需求，在一些特殊情况下仲裁协议的效力被认定应当扩展到非签署方。我国《民法典》对债权人代位权制度仅规定了诉讼的行权方式，在遇到次债务人基于有效仲裁协议提出的抗辩时，各地法院体现出了截然相反的裁判立场。仲裁协议效力在债权人代位权制度中的扩张将实现对债权人债权的保障以及次债务人程序权利的维护的双重效果。笔者认为，仲裁协议效力在债权人代位权制度中的扩张也能够得到债权人代位权制度和仲裁之性质的内在支撑。在此基础上，笔者提出了仲裁协议效力扩张在债权人代位权制度中进行扩张的具体方式。 With the development of civil and commercial interactions, the relativity of the arbitration agreement is no longer able to cope with the needs of reality, and the validity of the arbitration agreement has been recognized to be extended to non-signatory parties under some special circumstances. The “Civil Code” of China provides for the subrogation system of creditors only in the form of litigation, and the courts in different places have reflected the opposite position of adjudication when faced with the defenses raised by sub-debtors based on a valid arbitration agreement. The expansion of the effect of arbitration agreement in the creditor subrogation system has the dual effect of safeguarding the creditor’s claim and preserving the procedural rights of the sub-debtor. The author believes that the expansion of the effect of arbitration agreement in the subrogation system of creditors can also be supported by the subrogation system of creditors and the nature of arbitration. On this basis, the author proposes a specific way for the expansion of arbitration agreement effect in the creditor subrogation system.

国际商事仲裁协议作为国际商事仲裁活动的开端，其效力直接关系到整个仲裁程序能否顺利进行，关系到仲裁裁决是否能被承认与执行以及纠纷能否得到顺利解决。司法实践中，法院通常从对仲裁协议效力要件审查入手，审查内容包括协议的书面性、仲裁事项、仲裁机构和当事人的意思表示等要件。除此之外，仲裁协议的准据法也是法院在审查过程中关注的对象。当前实践中仍存在一些问题亟待解决，在促进仲裁工作不断发展的前提下，通过尊重当事人意思自治、弱化仲裁机构选定的强制性规定、完善“使其有效”原则，来争取使更多的仲裁协议能够得到认可。 As the beginning of international commercial arbitration, the effectiveness of the international commercial arbitration agreement is directly related to whether the whole arbitration procedure can proceed smoothly, whether the arbitration award can be recognized and enforced, and whether the dispute can be successfully resolved. In judicial practice, the court usually starts with the examination of the validity elements of the arbitration agreement, including the written nature of the agreement, the arbitration matters, the expression of the intention of the arbitration institution and the parties. In addition, the applicable law of the arbitration agreement is also the object of attention of the court in the process of review. At present, there are still some problems to be solved in practice. On the premise of promoting the continuous development of arbitration work, we should respect the autonomy of the parties’ will, weaken the mandatory provisions on the selection of arbitration institutions, and improve the principle of “making it effective”, so that more arbitration agreements can be recognized.

The surge in online interactions has led to a parallel rise in civil and commercial disputes that transcend geographical boundaries. As traditional dispute resolution mechanisms face challenges adapting to this evolving paradigm, conflicts increasingly migrate to online platforms. Within this proliferating landscape, it is crucial to recognize the scarcity of research devoted to Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) providers and the myriad types of services they currently offer to users worldwide. Despite the ongoing geographical expansion of ODR, the inquiry into how procedural justice principles manifest in these digital dispute resolution systems remains notably under-explored. A growing body of literature underscores that procedural justice is critical for building users’ trust, enhancing the legitimacy of organizations among communities, and fostering compliance with outcomes. The ability of ODR providers to meet users' expectations in terms of procedural justice can significantly shape users' perception of ODR institutions as trustworthy and dependable. This bears paramount implications for the ongoing development of ODR, whose acceptance varies widely across jurisdictions. This doctoral thesis delves into the intricate intersections of procedural justice within the realm of international civil and commercial ODR, examining the nuanced dynamics that emerge in virtual spaces. Ultimately, it seeks to understand how procedural justice principles, rooted in the notion of fairness, manifest and evolve in the context of ODR, exploring the impact of digital interventions on the perceived fairness of dispute resolution processes. Understanding procedural justice in ODR is not merely an academic pursuit; it holds profound implications for legal practitioners, policymakers, and society at large. This research aims to contribute valuable insights that can inform the design of fairer and more effective ODR systems.

This paper examined international arbitration as a tool for resolving investment disputes in Nigeria’s oil and gas sector, a critical industry that contributes significantly to Nigeria’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP), foreign exchange earnings and government revenues. This sector is marked by high-risk investments and complexity and often faces disputes arising from regulatory changes, fluctuating global prices, environmental concerns and contractual breaches. Arbitration, particularly in cross-border investments, provides a neutral, efficient and flexible mechanism for resolving such disputes. Using a doctrinal research methodology, the study analysed statutes, case law, international treaties, and academic sources. Findings revealed that while arbitration offers benefits such as neutrality and enforceability, there are still some challenges that must be addressed as a matter of urgency. Issues include resistance to enforcement of arbitral awards by Nigerian courts on grounds of national interest, high arbitration costs and biases favouring foreign investors. Nigeria’s legal framework, including the Arbitration and Mediation Act 2023 and the Petroleum Industry Act 2021, supports arbitration but lacks procedural clarity, leading to delays and inefficiencies. The paper concluded that legal reforms are essential to strengthen arbitration processes, enhance enforcement mechanisms and align Nigeria’s framework with international standards. Such reforms would foster investment stability and improve Nigeria’s attractiveness as an investment destination by reducing legal uncertainties. The paper recommended legislative and judicial improvements in order to achieve these goals.

Technology is continuously evolving and has changed human interaction. It is consequently changing the ways disputes are solved. International dispute resolution procedures, and international arbitration, more specifically, are considerably influenced by the rapid expansion of innovative technologies. Years after the dot-com boom, Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) emerged and evolved considerably. Due to the digitalization of ODR methods, remote arbitration (or e-arbitration) is expanding. Arbitration is of particular interest due to its formal and binding nature, from a theoretical perspective. E-arbitration, as other ODR methods have attractive features as well as drawbacks, which are addressed in this document.  The purpose of this paper is three-fold: providing an overview of e-arbitration and the different considerations of this method, presenting the e-arbitration models of the European Union (EU), the United States (US), and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and suggesting recommendations to improve international e-commerce arbitration, notably through a revision of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (UNCITRAL Model Law).